Saturday, May 9, 2015

WASHINGTON GA - AFTER THE MAULING DEATH OF NETA LEE ADAMS, 81, ON MARCH 31 BY A DOG/DOGS THAT WERE NEVER FOUND OR BREED IDENTIFIED, CITY COUNCIL FOCUSES ON DOG ORDINANCES TO PREVENT ANY MORE DOG ATTACK DEATHS

By KIP BURKE

news editor

Monday’s regular meeting of the Washington City Council started on a somber note as Mayor Ames Barnett led the city leaders and the audience in a moment of silence in memory of the late Neta Lee Adams, who was the victim of a dog attack March 31.

“It’s terrible that it happened,” the mayor said. “We think this won’t happen in our back yard, but it has happened in our back yard, and now we need to address it. We’re going to meet next week with the animal shelter and others and get their recommendations on what we can do. We owe it to Miss Neta to protect kids and other people walking down the street, and we’re going to have to make some hard decisions and put some rules in place. Some people may get mad, but at the end of the day we’re doing what’s right. We’re going to get on top of it and make sure it doesn’t happen again.”

City Administrator Sherri Bailey reviewed the city’s dog ordinances for the council. “Right now, we have a ‘running at large’ ordinance in place and an inoculation ordinance, so if you live in the city, you are supposed to have your dogs under control, in your possession, at all times. If you’re out walking it, it should be on a leash. If you have a dog, it should be either penned up in a secure way and not let it run around in the streets.”

Bailey said she is working with Darren Altman, the new city animal control officer. “He has been patrolling the streets, and he has responded to every single call that has come in either to him directly or through 911 or the Sheriff’s Office. I’ve spoken to the sheriff, and he’s got his deputies on the lookout for any dogs running at large. This is nothing new, it’s been in the ordinances for a long time.”

Bailey reminded citizens of their duty, too. “Mr. Altman is doing his best to respond to the calls, but I would ask the citizens that, if you see a dog running around at large, please call the Sheriff’s Office or Mr. Altman. He is certified, he can set up traps, he can use the dart gun, and he will do his best. But we have to know about them.”

Inoculations and tags are also part of the city ordinances, she said. “I want to remind citizens that you must have your animals’ shots up to date, and we will be picking up these dogs as we find them and take them to the animal shelter, and when you come to claim your dog, if it has not got the proper identification tags and found running at large, there are citations that will be issued for that. Those are the ordinances that are in place now.”

“Part of the problem is people seeing dogs and not calling,” Mayor Barnett said. “If you see a dog running loose, call us so we can deal with it.”

“My issue is not the dogs,” said Councilman Kimberly Rainey. “My issue is how did she wind up in the ditch? Where is her money? What happened to her beforehand? So I’m kinda real upset that we’re not focused on that issue, because to me that’s the real issue. What happened to her money? What happened to her pants? Nobody’s addressing that issue. That’s being glossed over. Yes the dog may have been the cause of death from what the GBI said, but how did she get in the ditch?”

Councilman Marion Tutt Jr. did not agree. “The root of this is the owner of the dog. We need to find the owner and hold them accountable. People need to be able to walk in peace and safety.”

THE CODE OF ALABAMA - 1975

Title: 6 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6-5-120

Defined.

A "nuisance" is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

(Code 1907, §5193; Code 1923, §9271; Code 1940, T. 7, §1081

Section 6-5-121

_____________________

Distinction between public and private nuisances; right of action generally.

Nuisances are either public or private. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured.

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.